
■n^d* 




(^ V** :M£:' X/ /Jtev *^..** .V 












.' ^'^ 



v.^. 



'o, */XT« .v'V 




** ^ %> oVJlv^* ^V '^. 








.•jif 



,-^*^ .»i':»;l% \ c°' .*.^'^'/°o >■* .c:r;4.% ^^-e "^^ 




r< -^^0^ i 



4^^ '^ 




&" ..V'-. '^^e 



■ « 



. V 







K ^^ .A^ *k^f/x^ "^^r. .&^ ^'^m^ ^^ A<^ *: 




4 q. >^^'J ?; 



.till 



V^^'^/ V^^''*/ V*^'\^^ '^=2^ *•• 



4 














V'^''\**' 




1» 4.T3 











C°^.'J^'l:% /'yJ^.-'-t, 0°*.'^I.>o * 




,**^ . 






^ ^o^'^''\o' %^^^\<,'^^ %*^-'/ "^^^ ' 




























.*'% 






















'^O^ 



^oK 




1 vv 



'^0^ 






■^,* , '^'^ -^^ 'o.^ 










THE WAR WITH MEXICO. 






SPEECH 



%. 



HON. Af H. SEYIER, OF ARKANSAS, 

m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, JANUARY 4, 1848, 

On the Bill reported from the Committee on Military Affairs to raise, for a limited time, 

an additional Military Force. 



Mr. SEVIER said: 

Mr. President: If the discussion with which 
we liave been honored for the la.st two or three 
weeks had been confined to the merits of the bill 
which proposes to add ten regiments to our mili- 
tary establishment in Mexico, it is very certain 
that I should have taken no part in this debate. 
My inexperience, practically and in theory in mili- 
tary affairs, would have been my apology for my 
silence. It is not my purpose now to dwell at any 
length upon the merits of this bill. I shall vote 
for it, because such a measure has been asked of 
us by the proper constitutional authorities of our 
country, to whom belong tlie management of all 
our wars; and because it has been favorably re- 
commended by tlie experienced and intelligent 
gentlemen of the Military Committee, to whom 
the investigation of such a subject properly be- 
longs, I shall vote for it, because I regard it as 
an essential measure to obtain, what we all profess 
so much to desire, a speedy and permanent peace 
with Mexico; and until that peace shall be had, as 
a wise financial arrangement, by which our treas- 
ury will be relieved, to a sensible extent, from 
the burdens which this war has thrown upon it. 
For these general reasons, avoiding all details, I 
shall vote for the bill with great pleasure. 

My chief object in addressing you to-day, sir, 
is to defend the President, for whom I feel a high 
personal regard, and the party of which he is at 
present the representative, and to which I belong, 
from the unmerited censures which have been cast 
upon both in reference to the origin of this war, its 
mode of prosecution, and its ultimate objects. 
Upon each of these three points, upon which we 
have had such eloquent and elaborate discourses, 
I purpose, if my health and strength will sustain 
me, to make some observations. 

The causes which led to this war have been 
properly described as being immediate, and, more 
or less, remote. The immediate cause of the war, 
i( the message of the President, if the report of 
General Taylor, and our own journals, are to be 
credited, is to be found in the attack made by the 
Mexican army upon the commands of Captains 
Thornton and Hardee, on the 24th of April, 1846, 
on the east side of the Rio Grande, about fifty 
miles above Fort Brown, in which sixteen soldiers 
of the army of the United States were killed or 
wounded, and the residue of the detachment, con- 
sisting in all of sixty-three men and officers, were 
captured by the army of Mexico, and carried off 
by their captors in triumph to the city of Mata- 

frinted at the Congressional Globe Office. 



moros. Upon the report of General Taylor of 
this affair, under date of the 26ih of April, the 
President predicated his war message of the 11th 
of May; and upon this message, accompanied by 
this report, we passed the act of the 13th of May 
recognizing the war with Mexico. 

The remote causes of the war have been traced 
to the acquisition of Louisiana in 180.3 — to the 
cession of Texas to Spain in 1819 — to the violation 
of the treaty of 1839, on the part of Mexico, which 
provided for the adjustment and payment of the 
claims of our citizens by Mexico — and to the col- 
onization of Texas, its revolution, independence, 
and, finally, its admission into this Union. In any 
of these causes, whatever may have been their in- 
fluence, singly or collectively, in producmg this 
war, the President had not the slightest agency. 
When Louisiana was acquired, he was a minor; 
when Texas was ceded to Spain, he was a very 
young man and not in our councils; when the 
treaty of 1839 was violated by Mexico, he was 
acting as the Governor of a distant State; and the 
resolutions for the annexation of Texas were 
passed in the time of President Tyler, and before 
he came into power. 

Yet I am free to confess that the party to which 
he belongs have had, in their day and generation, 
a good deal to do with all of those questions. The 
party to which I refer acquired Louisiana, pur- 
chased the Floridas, obtained the treaty for the 
settlement of the claims of our citizens by Mex- 
ico, and, finally, for good or for evil, the same 
party have brought Texas back into this Union, 
where, at all hazards and at any sacrifices, they 
intend to keep her, and every part and parcel of 
her. And while upon this subject I may add, 
that if any territory is acquired of Mexico as the 
penalty of this war, the country will be indebt- 
ed for such acquisition to the same party; as it 
is already indebted for every territorial addition 
which has been made to the country since the war 
of independence, and that these acquisitions have 
been made in the face of opposition as violent 
as the opposition which is now encountered, and 
against objections very similar to those which are 
now made. 

Sir, before passing sentence of condemnation 
upon the policy of the President, and particularly 
upon those grave questions, upon which we have 
had such merciless reviews, I think truth and jus- 
tice alike require that we should look at the con- 
dition of the country, at home and abroad, in 
reference to these great questions, at the time that- 






the President came into power on the 4th of March, 
1845. On that day it was his fortune to inherit 
from his predecessors, tiie settlement of two grave 
questions, in which other countries liian our own 
claimed an interest. One of these was the Texas 
question, and the other, the Oregon controversy. 
One affecting the pride and interest of Mexico, and 
the other the pride and interest of England; and 
both, the pride and interest of the United States. 

After all that has occurred, I hope I shall be 
pardoned for glancing at the rise, progress, and 
maturity of these twin sisters, and of their influ- 
ences in England and in Mexico, and of both 
against the United States, until the one was ami- 
cably settled by the treaty of June, 1846, and until 
the other involved us in the war in which we are 
now engaged. 

Sir, we all know that, after the successful revolt 
of Mexico from Spain, Texas was colonized by 
citizens from the United States, at the instance, 
in the first place, of Iturbide, her Emperor, and 
afterwards, at the instance of the Republic of Mex- 
ico. This policy of colonization was a wise one, 
and in imitation of the policy of Spain and France, 
when those Powers held possessions on this con- 
tinent. We all know that, in the course of events 
in that country, of which 1 need not speak, Texas 
revolted from Mexico, and that her revolution 
"was successful; that her independence followed, 
and that that independence was afterwards ac- 
knowledged by England, France, Belgium, and 
the United States. We all know that, after she 
had achieved her independence, Texas twice ap- 
plied — first under the administration of President 
Jackson, and afterwards under that of President 
Van Buren — for admission into this Union; and 
that each of those applications, out of deference 
to Mexico, and out of deference to the opinions of 
the world, were refused. In 1843, for reasons 
which I need not fully go into, Texas was invited 
by the Government of the United States to come 
into this Union. Security to southern institutions 
was one of the inducements on the part of the Uni- 
ted States. Trade, commerce, navigation, the 
extension of our territorial domain in a desirable 
direction, security to the Union in its most vulner- 
able point, and the monopoly of southern products, 
upon which the chief Powers of Europe depend- 
ed, and which dependence was regarded as more 
efficient, and cheap, and safe for the preservation 
of our peace, than standing armies, were the other 
inducements to that measure. 

Texas came upon our invitation, and, in 1844, 
entered into a treaty with the Government of the 
United Slates, by which she agreed to give up her 
sovereignty and independence, and become one of 
the States of this Confederacy. That treaty was 
submitted to the Senate for its ratification, and met 
with very determined and zealous opposition in 
this Chamber — the entire voice of one party, then 
in the majority, and a respectable portion of the 
other, were against it. The conflict of opinion 
between the advocates and opponents of the treaty, 
created a good deal of excitement. In the midst 
of our discussion upon it, a copy of that treaty, 
with the documents accompanying it, without the 
sanction of the Senate, found its way into the 
columns of the public press of the country. The 
publicity of that treaty, with the documents which 
belonged to it, carried into the country the ex- 
citement which had been created in the Senate in 



regard to it. The time of these occurrences was 
in the spring of 1844, and but a few weeks before 
theas.semblageof the tw« conventions at Baltimore 
of the two great parties of this country for the selec- 
tion of their^andidates for the offices of President 
and Vic<? President of the United States. Cotem- 
poraneously with these occurrences, the two distin- 
guished and acknowledged leaders of these great 
parties simultaneously came out against the treaty 
and the immediate annexation of Texas to this 
Union. These letters added to the excitement then 
prevailing in the country. The conventions met. 
The Whig convention nominated, as itougluto have 
done, their distinguished leader, eminently quali- 
fied as fully imbodying in himself the principles of 
that party, including Uieir hostility to the treaty 
and to the immediate annexation of Texas. The 
other convention, on account of the supposed 
heresy of their chief in reference to the Texas 
question, superseded him, and nominated another 
favcirable to the Texas issues. The treaty was 
rejected, but the issue was made up and presented 
to the country for its decision at the ballot-box. 
That issue was decided in November, 1844, and 
in favor of the Texas candidate. Mr. Tyler had 
yet one session of Congress left under which to 
administer the affairs of this country. In this 
short fragment of his term, a joint resolulicn for 
the annexation of Texas was introduced in the 
House of Representatives by a prominent Whig 
of the State of Tennessee. That resolution re- 
newed the excitement upon this Texas question. 
It passed ultimately by nearly a parly vote. All 
the Whig party, I believe, but three or four from 
the State of Tennessee, voted against it. That reso- 
lution came to the Senate, and brought with it tht 
excitement from the House. It was referred to 
our Committee on Foreign Relations, and that 
committee reported adversely upon it. The friends 
of the House resolution, to save the measure, were 
forced into a compromise with their friends. This 
compromise was made by adding to the House 
resolutions, as an alternative proposition, the reso- 
lution which had been offered by the Senator from 
Missouri, [Mr. Bevton.] At the proper stage of 
the proceedings this amendment was offered, for 
which every Democrat voted, and against which 
every Whig but three (Johnson of Louisiana, 
Merrick of Maryland, and Henderson of Missis- 
sippi,) cast their votes. The amendment having 
been adopted, tl^ final vote oame on. And who 
that was here at that time can ever forget it? It was 
at night. The House had adjourned, and I be- 
lieve every member of i^L was here witnessing our 
proceedings. Our galleries were crowded uniil 
they could be crowded no more; every door, and 
window, and avenue to our Chamber was filled 
with eager and anxious spectators. Every resi- 
dent representative of any foreign Power or State 
was also here, and among the rest the minister from 
Mexico. Any material change in the resolutions 
was known to be fatal to the whole measure, and 
several were proposed. Democracy was then in a 
minority in this body. Every Senator was in his 
place, and justly felt his responsibility. Every- 
thing, in short, depended upon the firmness and 
courage with which Johnson of Louisiana, Mci^ 
rick of Maryland, and Henderson of Mississipjn 
could and would resist the importunities of souk 
and withstand the denunciations of others of then 
poUtical friends. In this moment of hope and 



fear, involving such interests to tlie United States 
and the future fate of the R,epublic of Texas, the 
vote was taken, and the resohition, as amended, 
was carried by a vote of 27 to 25. The resolutions 
were sent to the Flouse and the amendment con- 
curred in, and on the 1st of March approved by- 
President Tyler, and on the 3d of that month was 
sent a messenger to Texas with the resolutions, and 
the first of the two offtred to Texas for her accept- 
ance, and on the night succeeding that day the term 
of President Tyler and of the session of the Con- 
gress that passed these resolutions expired together. 
On the 4th of March, President Polk came into 
power, and two days thereafter, on the 6th, the 
minister from Mexico filed his protest, demanded 
and obtained his passport, and left the United 
States for Mexico, and our minister, in a few 
weeks thereafter, followed the example, and re- 
turned to his own country. Such, sir. was the 
condition of this Texas question when President 
Polk came into power on the 4th of March, 1845. 
He found the public faith of the country pledged 
to tlie annexation of Texas, and regarded it as his 
duty to see that that faith was preserved inviolate. 
He found that the resolutions for the admission of 
Texas, though obligatory upon the United States, 
for a given time fn any event, had yet to be ap- 
proved of by Texas before they could be obliga- 
tory on her, and finally upon both governments. 
To obtain this approval by Texas, however anx- 
ious to give it, under her form of government, 
required time. Her Congress had first to be as- 
sembled to authorize a convention of her people, 
and that convention had to be organized, and had 
to discuss, and consider, and decide upon the 
terms which had been offered by the United 
States. He found that, to prevent her acceptance 
of the terms which had been offered by the United 
States, Mexico was threatening to invade her, 
and that the Congress and convention had each 
asked the interposition of the United States to 
prevent it. He found our diplomatic intercourse 
with Mexico angrily and abruptly broken off. 
And how, sir, has the President managed the 
many difficulties connected with this question.' 
Has he managed them with wisdom, prudence, 
and forbearance.' — in a manner worthy of liimself 
and the great country of which he is the Chief 
Magistrate.' — with an eye single to the public 
good, and' with the commendable view. and temper 
to soothe the pride and restore the friendly rela- 
tions with Mexico, and, at the same time, to pro- 
tect the interest and honor of the United States .' — 
and, above all, has he anxiously sought to sup- 
press resentments, and to avoid a war between the 
two countries.' These, sir, in my judgment, are the 
proper inquiries for us to make, and upon these 
inquiries I beg leave to make a few remarks. 

Anticipating the favorable reception by Texas 
of the resolution of Congress, providing for her 
admission into this Union; apprehending, from in- 
telligence which he had received from that quarter, 
an invasion of Texas by Mexico; earnestly urged 
by the Congress and Convention of Texas to pre- 
vent that invasion; the President, on the 15th of 
June, 1845, ordered our fleet to the Gulf of Mexi- 
co, and General Taylor, then at Fort Jesup, on 
the western frontier of Louisiana, to move with his 



judgment, at the proper time, would be most con- 
venient for the embarkation of his troops for the 
western frontier of Texas. In this order, General 
Taylor was further informed that his ultimate des- 
tination was the Rio Grande; and, in the same 
order, he was also informed not to enter Texas 
until he should learn that Texas had assented to 
the terms of anjiexation which had been offered 
her by the United States, or until required to do so 
by our minister at Texas. This is the substance 
of the first order to General Taylor. There were 
orders of the 8lh and 30th of July, and of the 23d 
August, 1845. The substance of all these orders, 
apart from mere military detail, was, that he was 
to regard the Rio Grande as the point of his ulti- 
mate destination; that he was to protect Texas 
from invasion up to that river; and in no event 
permit armed troops from Mexico to cross it, as 
such an act would be regarded by the United 
States as an act of hostility. In executing these 
orders, he was directed to be careful not to do any- 
thing to irritate Mexico dr to provoke hostilities; 
and that if Mexico had any military establishment 
on the east side of thi Rio Grande (which by the 
by she had) not to disturb it; and should he find 
on the east side of that river any private citizens 
or settlers claiming to belong to Mexico, not to 
molest them. Such, sir, is the purport and sub- 
stance of these several orders, in the wisdom and 
policy of all of which that distinguished general 
most fully concurred, as his correspondence abund- 
antly proves. And where, let me ask, in what 
public document, in what history of any age or of 
any country, in what wild romance even, have we 
proofs of snore prudence, caution, and forbearance 
than are to be found in the several orders of which 
I have given the substance.' Where do we find 
the development of greater solicitude, while firmly 
resolved to protect the rights of his own countr^, 
to avoid giving offence, real or fancied, to an ad- 
versary, than we find in the conduct of the Presi- 
dent as exhibited in the documents to which I have 
referred .' 

General Taylor obeyed the order of the 15th of 
June, and moved immediately with his command, 
not to the Gulf or its navigable waters, but to the 
barracks in the vicinity of New Orleans, and there 
he remained until he received, in the month of 
July, the intelligence from our minister at Texas 
that Texas had assented to the terms of annex- 
ation, and had voluntarily thereby become an 
integral part of this Union. Learning this, that 
General then, in further compliance with his in- 
structions, embarked his troops for the frontier 
of the State of Texas. After some delays and 
difficulties connected with his stores and transport- 
ation, and some hesitation as to the proper point, 
of which the selection had been left to his discre- 
tion, we find him, on the 15th of August, at Cor- 
pus Christi, on the south side of the mouth of the 
Nueces river. Here he remained, usefully em- 
ployed in making preparations for any service that 
might be required of him by either the folly or 
madness of Mexico, or the orders of his own Gov- 
ernment. On the ICth of October, General Taylor 
is informed that information had been received by 
the department rendering it probable that no se- 
rious attempt would be made to invade Texas, 



forces to the mouth of the Sabine, on the Gulf of although Mexico still continued tothreaten incur- 
Mexico; or, in his discretion, to some other point j sions. Here, sir, with your permission, I will 
in the Gulf or its navigable waters, which in his ' leave for a while our gallant old General and our 



distinguislied Secretary of War, with tlieir bappy 
prospects of peace before them, and invite your 
attention to tliis Texas question in anotlier quarter, 
and to its management by other agents. 

The President informs us, that in September, 
1845, he received information from Mexico which 
induced him to beheve that the Government of that 
RepubUc was, at that time, favorably disposed to 
settle by negotiation all the difficuliies existing be- 
tween the two countries. Relying upon this intel- 
ligence, Mr. Buchanan, our Secretary of State, on 
the 17th of September, 1845, addressed a letter to 
Mr. Black, our consul at the city of Mexico, di- 
recting him to ascertain if the intelligence which 
had been communicated by him and others was 
well founded; and if so, to assure the Government 
■ of Mexico that the Government of the United 
States would waive all etiquette, and send to that 
Goun«ry immediately an envoy clothed with full 
powers to settle amicably, and on the most liberal 
terms, every cause of difficulty unhappily subsist- 
ing between the two countries. Mr. Black replied 
to this letter of our Secretary of State, under date 
of the 17th of October, informing our Government 
that an envoy would be received from this country, 
for the purpose of settling by negotiation all of the 
difficulties; and Mr. Black enclosed, with this de- 
spatch, the correspondence which had taken place 
upon tins subject between himself and the Secre- 
tary of State of the Government of Mexico, of the 
dates of the 13ih and 15th of October, 1845, show- 
ing on the part of Mexico their agreement to receive 
from this country an envoy, to setile by negotiation 
every dispute or cause of complaint that existed 
between Mexico and the United States; and it was 
asked on the part of Mexico, as a pr'eliminary, 
that our fleet, then in the vicinity of Vera Cruz, 
ishould be withdrawn. In the month of November, 
this despatch of Mr. Black of the 17th of October, 
with the enclosures referred to, was received at the 
Department of State, and our squadron was im- 
mediately withdrawn from Vera Cruz, and Mr. 
Slidell, our minister, invested with full powers to 
settle amicably everything with Mexico, was sent 
to that country. This was the position of this 
Texas question when Congress met in this city in 
the month of December, 1845, which was the first 
Congress under Mr. Polk's administration. In 
the first annual message of the President, which 
was at the meeting of this Congress, the President 
made a full and detailed statement, with a minute- 
ness which was almost tiresome, of everything that 
had been done in relation to this Texas question. 
He gave us everything emanating fiom either the 
State or War Departments having the slightest 
bearing upon it. He told us that Texas had agreed 
to our annexation resolutions, and, by so doing, 
had become a member of this Union. He com- 
municated the substance of tlie orders to General 
Taylor, and particularly, that the point of his ulti- 
mate destination was the Rio Grande. He told 
us what intelligence he had received from Mexico 
respecting the reception of a minister, and tliat one 
had been sent to that country. He congratulated 
us all upon the enlarged extent, bloodlessly achiev- 
ed, of our territorial domain, reaching, as he in- 
formed us, from the bay of Fundy, along the 
Atlantic coast, passing the capes of Florida, and 
around the Gulf to the Rio Grande. All these 
things he told us in his message of 1845, which 
message was read by our Secretary, printed by our 



printer, and read by us again in our chambers, and 
by the reading portion of our fellow-citizens. And 
in the same December, an act of Congress was 
passed, incorporating this whole Gulf coast into 
a collection district. Where were the eloquent 
defenders of our Constitution at the time of the 
passage of this act, and at the time of these Execu- 
tive disclosures ? Where were our champions of 
justice when these startling and portentous dis- 
closures were made? Were they sick, or absent, 
or dead, or deaf, or blind ? Did it take the sound of 
the cannon at Palo Alto, and of Resaca, to rouse 
them from their stupor, and to put their brains 
and tongues in motion? These are questions 
which, in my judgment, ought to be answered. 

But to return to the history of our minister. 
Our minister arrived in the city of Mexico early 
in December, and on the eve of a r'evolutlon in that 
country, based, as he informs us, upon the un- 
popularity of the consent of the President of Mex- 
ico to receive a minister from the United States. 
Timidity and selfishness, more than inclination, on 
the part of Herrera, prevented his Government 
from receiving our minister. His mission was 
refused, upon the ostensible ground that he came 
as an envoy and not as a commissioner — with too 
much instead of too little power, and that he had. 
been appointed by the President in the recess, and 
that that appointment had not been confirmed by 
the Senate. These were the ostensible motives. 
The real objections were, that Paredes, one of 
Herrera's generals, to whom had been intrusted 
the command of eight thousand men, for the inva- 
sion of Texas, pronounced against the Govern- 
ment of Herrera, on the avowed ground that Her- 
rera had consented to receive a minister from the 
United States, with the view of settling all the dif- 
ficulties between the two republics by negotiation, 
and that this general was then on his route to the 
city of Mexico for the puipose of overthrowing 
the Government, and putting a stop to these con- 
templated negotiations. These facts were com- 
municated to our Government by our minister, 
under date of the 26th of December, and that com- 
munication was received in this city on the 12th 
of January, 1846, and on the next day, the order 
of the 13lh of January was given to General Taylor 
to advance his columns to the Rio Grande. This 
order was received by General Taylor in the month 
of February, and executed by him in the latter 
part of March. 

This is the order, sir, about which we have 
heard so much. This is the fruit of that forbidden 
tree, from which has sprung, and is to spring, 
nothing but wo and disaster to this country. This 
is the order which has violated the Constitution of 
the United States, and usurped the constitutional 
powers of Congress, which stands so preeminent 
in our history, without law or example to justify 
it, and which led to the invasion and forcible ap- 
propriation of the territory of a neighboring power, 
and changed the friendly relations of the two coun- 
tries into that of a state of war. 

Sir, I have already endeavored, I fear with tire- 
some particularity, to give you , in detail, the circum- 
stances under which this order was given; and I 
will now, with your indulgence, make a few obser- 
vations upon the objections which have been urged 
against it. The objections to this order, however 
ramified or numerous, all point to and rest upon 
Executive prerogative. 



r shall not trouble you, sir, with rrading ex- 
tracts from our Constitution, or laws made in 
pursuance tliereof; or from the Federalist, or from 
Kent or Stor)', or from adjudicated cases. Such a 
parade of learning, in such a body as the Senate, 
would be worse than useless. I hold these posi- 
tions to be true: that the President is the consti- 
tutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy 
of the United States, and, as such, has the right, 
with or without good reason, to order the army of 
the United States to any point within the limits of 
the United States; subject, however, at all times, 
to personal punishment, by impeachment, for any 
corrupt abuse of his power. I hold that, under 
the Constitution and laws, he has the undoubted 
right, with or without the sanction of Congress, 
to suppress an insurrection, or to repel an invasion 
or threatened invasion of the territory of any of 
the States, or of the territory of the United Slates. 
If I am right in these positions, and I think no 
intelligent lawyer or statesman will controvert 
them, it follows that the order to General Taylor, 
of the 13th of January, which was to prevent an 
invasion of the territory of one of the States of this 
Union, was a constitutional order, which the Presi- 
dent had the right to give, and which it was the 
duty of .General Taylor to obey. In my view of 
this case, as the order was to prevrtit the invasion 
of Texas, it is a matter of immateriality and per- 
fect indifference, whether the territory into which 
tlie army was marched belonged to Mexico or to 
Texas, unless it may be regarded as a circumstance 
of aggravation or mitigation of the offences of 
Mexico against this country. 

But, sir, it so happens that the territory into 
which this army was marched, was the territory 
of one of the States of this Union, and was not 
the territory of Mexico. I am one of those who 
have ever contended, and do now contend, that the 
territory lying between the Nueces and the Rio 
Grande, and below New Mexico, rightfully and 
properly lielongs to Texas, by the title of conquest 
and possession. I never did contend that the coun- 
try east of the Rio Grande, and included in New 
Mexico, did belong to Texas; for she neither con- 
quered or held possession of it. Yet I remember 
to have heard an argument in this Chamber, by 
our present Secretary of the Treasury, of great 
force and ingenuity, founded upon the laws of na- 
tions, and which I have never yet seen refuted, in 
defence of the claim of Texas to this territory also. 
I am one of those who never did believe, and do 
not now believe, that the desert, or stupendous 
desert, as on stupendous occasions it is sometimes 
stupendously called, (which, by the by, happens 
to be a large fertile prairie, resembling the famous 
blue-grass pastures of Kentucky more than any- 
thing else,) and which has been located between 
the Nueces and Rid Grande, ever was the proper 
boundary of Texas, however suitable a boundary 
it may be, to separate the Anglo-Saxon and Mau- 
ritanian races. And I will now proceed, sir, to 
give you the reasons for my faith. 

Afier the battle of San Jacinto, in 1836, the 
Mexican army retreated to the west side of the 
Rio Grande, and, from that day to tliis, that power 
has had no military estal)lishment on the east side 
of that river. Nor, prior to the events with our 
army, in April and May, 1846, has Mexico ever 
had an army on the east side of tliat river, except 
on two stealthy predatory incursions, for roguery 



and plunder, from which her forces retreated again 
to the west side of that river, more rapidly than 
they advanced from it. From the battle of San 
Jacinto to this day, Mexico has exercised no civil 
jurisdiction on the east side of the Rio Grande. 
The settlem'ent (if a settlement it can be called) at 
Brazos Santiago, and the military organization at 
Laredo, to which reference has been made, for the 
purpose of sharing tlie exercise of civil authority, 
by Mexico, at the former place, and of military 
jiu-is(!iction at the latter place, form no just excep- 
tion to the force of my statement. 

The settlement at Brazos Santiago, which party 
arithmetic has magnified into a village with a cus- 
tom-house, consisted of a few miserable shanties, 
probably a half a dozen in number, which had 
been built and occasionally occupied by straggling 
fishermen, vagabonds, and smugglers — never per- 
manent — here to-day and gone to-morrow; and it 
is believed, when the nest was full, never, at any 
one time, exceeding fifty souls in number. It is 
true, that during the existence of the troubles be- 
tween Texas and Mexico, importers of goods and 
merchandise destined for the market of Matamo- 
ros, for the greater security from seizure by the 
at5thorities of Texas, did sometimes land their 
cargoes at Brazos Santiago; and that, on such oc- 
casions, an agent from the custom-house at Mata- 
moros came to that point and received the duties 
on these goods, prior to their being crossed over 
to the west side of the Rio Grande, in order that 
they might by that route be safely introduced into 
Matamoros. And I believe it is also true, that those' 
goods, while awaiting the arrival of the custom- 
house agent, and while being prepared for a land 
transportation from that point up the west side of 
that river, were temporarily protected by one or 
more of those shanties. From this information 
which I have had in regard to the settlement at 
Brazos Santiago, and in which I place confidence, 
I infer that there was nothing in the nature of that 
settlement, if a settlement it can be called, that 
goes to prove the exercise, on the part of Mexico, 
of any civil authority at that point. This informa- 
tion I have had confirmed by a conversation I 
have recently had with one of our gallant naval 
officers, who was wiili our fleet at Brazos, at tlie 
arrival of General Taylor at that place. The 
officer I allude to is Captain Gregory, of the navy. 
So far from such a settlement establishing the ex- 
ercise of any such authority, I infer the contrary. 
It estaljlishes the acknowledged supremacy of 
Texas on the east side of the river, as well as 
upon it. 

In regard to the military organization at Laredo, 
which is relied upon to prove the exercise of mili- 
tary authority on the part of Mexico, on the east 
side of the ri\er, I have to say, that I see nothing 
iii that organization calculated to prove the exer- 
cise of any such authority. Before the revolution 
of Texas, the citizens of thnt town, in consequence 
of their exposure to Indian depredations, were 
exempt from the decree, or order, or law, or what- 
ever it was, that deprived all the citizens of Mex- 
ico, not attached to the army, from owning and 
bearing arms. It was this decree or order, and 
the attempt on the part of Mexico !o enforce it, 
that produced the revolution of Texas. The citi- 
zens of Laredo were exempt from a compliance 
with this decree, for the special reasons I have 
referred to. This organization existed before the 



6 



revolution, during the revolution, and, for aught I 
know to llie contrary, exists to (his day. It was an 
organization with which Texas never interfered, 
an organization wliicii Texas had taken up arms to 
defend, and which was but a common right ever 
claimed and exercised by every freeman of that 
Republic. 

This town, the largest and most important of all 
the settlements on tlie east side of the Rio Grande, 
viras twice visited by the army of Texas, and that 
town as often acknowledged the supremacy of 
Texas; and that acknowledgment, so far as my 
information extends, was never after controverted. 
Such are the explanations, based, as 1 believe, 
upon truth, that I have thought proper to give 
upon the nature and descrijition of those two set- 
tlements to which reference has been made. 

In 1843, when Texas and Mexico were induced, 
through the medium of the representatives of 
France and England, to agree upon an armistice, 
nothing was said upon the subject of boundary 
between those two republics. But in the procla- 
mation of General Woll, then at the head of the 
Mexican forces, that general, on proclaiming the 
termination of the armistice, notified every one not 
to approach, on the east side of the Rio Grande, 
within one league of that river, or they would be 
regarded as enemies, and treated accordingly. 
That general, on that occasion, said nothing about 
the Nueces or the stupendous desert. 

These, sir, are the evidences I adduce against 
the claim of Mexico to any part of the territory 
lying between the Nueces and Rio Grande, and 
below New Mexico. 

On the part of Texas, I urge the fact of her ex- 
pulsion of the civil and military authority of Mex- 
ico from the east to the west side of the Rio Grande, 
and of her having kept it there. I urge the fact of 
her congressional declaration of December, 1836, 
of the Rio Grande as her boundary. I urge the 
factof her military eslablishmentat Corpus Christi, 
convenient to her settlements, and favorable for 
the reception of supplies, from which post the army 
of Texas, at pleasure, fiist under General Rusk, 
and afterwards under General Felix Huston, 
traversed over the whole of this country without 
molestation. I urge the fact that Texas had or- 
ganized this country into counties, and appointed 
civil officers in it to administer her laws; that she 
sent her public surveyors into it, and surveyed it, 
and appropriated these lands to her own use. I 
urge tlie fact that Texas had established an elec- 
tion precinct at Corpus Christi, at which the citi- 
zens residing between the two rivers, if they chose 
to do so, could vote. What better claim tlian this, 
founded upon conquest and continuous possession, 
can any country have for her territory? It is the 
title by which, if not all, the majority of the civil- 
ized powers of the world hold their possessions. 

It is true, sir, that within this territory, the set- 
tlements were detached and sparse, and, from the 
nature of their situation, in such limes as those, 
that law and justice may have been but feebly ad- 
ministered, and that the franchises of a freeman 
may have been but scantily enjoyed. The Senator 
from Maryland [iVlr. Pearce] has ridiculed the 
fact (but his ridicule will not alter the fact) of a 
precinct having been established at Corpus Christi 
for the accommodation of all the settlers residing 
between the two rivers. What! (he asks,) estab- 
lish a precinct for these poor fellows to vote at, one 



hundred and fifty miles from the residences of some 
of them ! Sir, thai Senator was born in Maryland, 
in an old and thickly-settled country, where are to 
be had, not only all the comforts which man can 
desire, but also all the political accommodations 
which the most infirm or indolent could iiope for. 
In new countries, these things are otherwise. At 
one time, in the history of my own State, which 
in point of territory is among the largest in the 
Union, the territory which now forms that State, 
then a part of Missouri, belonged to the county of 
New Madrid, and the county seat of which was at 
the village of New Madrid, on the Mississippi 
river, some seventy or seventy-five miles below 
the mouth of the Ohio; and to this county seat the 
settlers on the Red river had often to come, to 
attend to their suits and to serve as grand jurors. 
In the discharge of this duty, tliose people had to 
travel, if by water, to their county seat, eight hun- 
dred or a thousand miles; and if by land, four or 
five hundred miles, through a country nearly des- 
titute of inhabitants, and much of the way through 
the woods, and over navigable streams and impass- 
able creeks. As late as 1819, the county of Ar- 
kansas was bounded on the south by Louisiana, 
and on the north by the State of Missouri, and 
measured by the meanders of the Mississipjii river, 
which was its eastern front, a distance of about six 
hundred miles. The county seat fir this county 
was at the " Old Port of Arkansas," a village ven- 
erable at least for its age, it having been settled, 
according to the tradition of the country, cotem- 
poraneously with St. Louis, Kaskaskia,Vincennes, 
and Philadelphia, whicl) was, I believe, according to 
our chronicleis, in J685. This county seat — which 
has seen belter days, but which has been of late 
years becoming " smaller by degrees and beauti- 
fully less" — was selected, as all county seats in all 
new countries are selected, in reference to popula- 
tion, and not territorial centres. It was on the 
edge of one side of the county, and the remoter 
settlers, in getting to it, had to travel two or three 
hundred miles. These inconveniences are but of 
common occurrence in all new countries, as Sena- 
tors from the new Stales will testify. When the 
Senator from Maryland shall hereafter dwell upon 
this subject, I hope we shall have his sympathy 
instead of his ridicule, and that he will content 
himself by thanking his stars that he was born in 
Maryland, and not in the wilderness. I hope he 
will cease to wonder that the poor fellows on the 
Rio Grande had to travel to San Patricio or Cor- 
pus Christi to vote or transact their business. 
Upon the whole, then, I urge this fact also as im- 
portant, and not trivial, in behalf of the claim of 
Texai?. 

It is probably true that the greater number of. 
the settlers on the Pcio Grande were of Spanish 
origin, and favorably inclined to the cause of Mex- 
ico. But no matter what their origin or feeling, 
they were too inconsiderable in numbers to be the 
object of special attention to either of the belliger- 
ents. They took no part, generally, in the con- 
flict between Texas and Mexico, and through the 
double motives of policy and humanity, neither of 
the parties disturbed them. They were left to the 
enjoyment of their neutrality, their flocks and little 
patclies of corn, and cotton, and red pepper. The 
only instance to the contrary, was the order of 
G(ne:al Rusk, in 1836, to tho.se settlers to retire to 
his rear, on the Gaudaloupe, or to the west side 



of the Rio Grande, which order all of them obeyed, 
and continued to obey until 1838, when they were 
again permitted to return, and did return, and 
there they have remained ever since. 

These facts I urge in behalf of the claim of 
Texas to the territory between the Nueces and 
Rio Grande, and as adverse to the pretensions of 
Mexico. It is true that Mexico, during all this 
time, claimed not only the territory in controversy, 
but the whole of Texas, not to the Nueces, or the 
desert, which she never mentioned, but to the Sa- 
bine; and that she blustered and bullied, and talked 
loudly of invasion, and blood, and thunder, and 
all that. Thus stood the claim of the respective 
parties when the treaty of annexation was made 
in 1844. And this brings me to the action of the 
United States upon this question of title and bound- 
ary. The United States, as the successors of Tex- 
as, and to whom this settlement of her boundary 
had been committed, could not, consistently with 
her fidelity and honor to Texas, give up any part 
of it, without a friendly discussion, by which the 
United States should be satisfied thai the claim of 
Texas was untenable. The United States would 
have regarded it as treacherous and cowardly to 
have done so. This discussion, at that time and 
ever since, the United States were most anxious 
to have, and to settle it speedily, and upon the 
most liberal terms, of which there is in our ar- 
chives the most abundant proof. This discussion 
the Government of Mexico most peremptorily re- 
fused, and in consequence of that refusal, the Uni- 
ted States were unwilling to give up any part of 
the boundary claimed by Texas. The main op- 
position to the treaty of that day rested upon the 
question of boundary — and that part of the bound- 
ary, mainly, which included the Santa Fe country, 
or New Mexico, with its forty villages, which had 
been settled by Spain one hundred years before 
La Salle had ever seen the Mississippi river, and 
which Texas had never invaded, much less con- 
quered. To show that this country was included 
in the claim of Texas, the Senator from Missouri, 
[Mr. Benton,] in April, 1844, introduced a reso- 
lution calling upon President Tyler for the bound- 
ary claimed by Texas. The response to this call 
was a map, in large red lines, describing that 
boundary from the mouth to the source of the Rio 
Grande. Accompanying this map was a memoir 
of valuable information which had not been called 
for by the Senator from Missouri, showing the 
quantity of land, among other things, which we 
were getting by our treaty, and the computation 
of those lands included, all lying within the claim 
of Texas. This was all that the opponents of the 
treaty desired, and as it came to us, without any 
explanation in regard to that fact, giving us New 
Mexico, it was rather more than the friends of the 
treaty desired. The treaty was rejected. But the 
policy of the United States, in regard to the man- 
ner of settling this boundary question, (that is to 
sayby a friendly discussion,) has notbeen changed. 
The United Slates have still considered themselves 
bound to protect the boundary of Texas until satis- 
fied it was untenable. The United States had no 
other course to pursue, under such circumstances, 
than to prevent Mexico from seizing Texas or any 
part of it, by force. She would have acted un- 
worthy of herself, and contemptibly in the eyes of 
the world, if she had pursued any other policy 
than she has upon this question, under all the cir- 



cumstances. She has not been derelict in her duty 
to Texas, nor unkind or unjust to Mexico. The 
President did precisely what the country expected 
him to do; he tried to settle this boundary in a 
friendly manner and upon the most liberal terms. 
He could not effect it. Mexico was preparing to 
invade it and hold it, and the President anticipated 
Mexico, and prevented her. In doing this he did 
his duty, and for v/hich, for one, I thank him. 

But our adversaries say, that in a movement so 
important, so likely to change the peaceful rela- 
tions between the two countries into that of a state 
of war, it was the duty of the President to have 
consulted Congress, which was then in session. It 
is true that Congress was in session in January, 
1846, when the order was given to General Taylor, 
and that Congress was not consulted about that 
order. And why, let me ask, should Congress 
have been consulted about it ? Does not a satis- 
factory answer, for the omission of the President 
to consult Congress about this order, suggest itself 
to Senators ? Have we so soon forgotten the events 
of that period? Have we forgotten our difficulty 
then pending with England in regard to the Oregon 
territory ? The anxiety felt everywhere and by 
every one upon that subject? Have we forgotten 
the temper displayed by our fellow-citizens at that 
time; the manifest and eager uprising of the masses 
of our population upon the popular cry in this 
country, of a war with England? of the prompt 
demand for news upon the arrival of every steamer 
from En2;land ? Have we forgotten the debates in 
England and France, (her ally upon the Oregon 
and Texas questions,) and the debates in this 
Chamber, upon the anticipated rupture at that 
time with this formidable Power? of the neces- 
sity we all felt for the immediate adjustment of this 
question, fairly and amicably, in order to preserve 
the peace of the world, and probably England or 
America, and possibly both, from many and irrep- 
arable sacrifices? Have we forgotten the influ- 
ences which this Oregon question had upon the 
policy of Mexico, and of the Texas question upon 
the policy of England, by which these two Powers 
were brought together, and acted in unison against 
the United States? and in which the cooperation 
of France was relied upon by the mad and vision- 
ary, but tempting consideration of giving, under 
the auspices of Paredes and the clergy, a ruler to 
Mexico, in the person of a prince of the house of 
Bourbon? In such a critical position of our affairs, 
in January, 1846, was the President prepared at 
that time to recommend Congress to declare war 
against Mexico, if he had even desired a war, 
which he never did with that power? No, sir, he 
was not. He chose, and I think wisely, a different 
line of policy. He chose to settle our difficulties 
with Mexico, if possible, rather by negotiation 
than the sword, and acting on this policy he 
directed our minister, (Mr. Siidell,) notwithstand- 
ing the refusal by Herrera to receive him, and 
notwithstanding the revolution, and the avowal of 
the principles on which it was achieved — he directed 
that minister, notwithstanding these obstacles, to 
remain in Mexico, and to make overtures for his 
reception, to the usurper, with the view of settling 
every cause of dispute between the two countries. 
And that minister did remain, and did make these 
overtures until the 12th of March, when, on that 
day, his overtures were definitely and finally re- 
jected. That chieftain having come into power by 



8 



a revolution predicated upon the question of no 
negoiiation with ilie United Slates, hut war; and 
expecting at that precise period of time a rupture 
between the United States and Enijland upon the 
Oregon question, wiiich had, at that time, assumed 
the appearance of probability, and reiving, for the 
reasons before alluded to, upon the cooperation of 
France, and relying also a good deal uf)on our 
unhappy divisions upon the Texas question, of 
which, I have reason to believe, he was well in- 
formed — that chieftain, for these reasons, on the 
12th of March, dismissed Mr. Slidell, and resolved, 
in the midstof our difficulties at home and abroad, 
to invade Texas for the purpose of reconquering 
It. At that time, on the 12ih of March,' when 
this long lalked-of invasion of Texas had been de- 
termined upon, the movement of General Taylor 
from Corpuis Christi, which was on the llt'h of 
March, and only one day before the final refusal 
of the reception of our minister, was not and 
could not have been known by Paredes, or in the 
city of Mexico. It v/as not, therefore, the march 
which either caused the refusal of the reception of 
our minister by the Government of Mexico, or 
that provoked that Power into hostilities against 
the Uniied States, from which this war owes its 
origin. Are other proofs to establish this fact de- 
sired? If so, we have them, in the proclamation 
of General Ampudia, at that time at the head of 
the invadingarmy, under date of the 27th of March, 
at Saltillo, in which he enumerated the causes of 
complaint against the United Slates; and in that 
list the march of Gener;-,1 Taylor from Corpus 
Christi is not enumerated, but the resolution for 
the annexation of Texas is enumerated. As Gen- 
eral Taylor had only arrived at the Rio Grande 
on the 26th of March, on the day only preceding 
the date of that general's proclamation, the move"^- 
raent of General Taylor was probably unknown 
to him. Are further proofs wanted to show that 
the admission of Texas into the Union, and not 
the march of General Taylor, was the cause of 
offence to Mexico, which produced the revolution, 
and pushed that Power into hostilities against us? 
We find this additional proof in the manifesto of 
Paredes, dated at the national palace on the 23d day 
of April, 1846, after he had heard of the arrival of 
General Taylor on the Rio Grande, which arrival 
he notices in that manifesto, and which he regard- 
ed as an aggravation of the oflences of the United 
States against Mexico. That chieftain, in that 
document, informs us, that on assuming the re- 
sponsibility, in the beginning of the year 1846, he 
had resolved upon changing the policy of Mexico, 
from that of weak and temporizing, which had 
been observed in regard to the United States, in 
consequence of the perfidy of the United States in 
incorporating one of the departments' of Mexico 
into its Confederacy, and of its treacherous viola- 
tion of the -terms of existing treaties, which de- 
fined the limits of Mexico. That President of 
Mexico tells us in tliat document, after a good deal 
of bluster and bombast, that it was for this reason 
that Mexico sanctioned the movement which he 
began at San Luis Potosi, not for (he purpose of 
placiniT himself in power, but that Mexico "might 
shine," by the triumi)hs of a cause, which is Ihe 
cause of the conservative princijde of human so- 
ciety. Are other proofs watued to show that it 
was not the march of Taylor's army to the Rio 
Grande that caused this war? We iind thoni in 



I the letter of Commodore Conner, under date of the 
I 2d of March, 1846, nine days before General Tay- 
lor moved from Corpus Christi, in which the Com- 
modore states, that the papers of the capital state 
that within the last ten days a large force of nearly 
eight thousand men had marched to the north.ern 
frontier. The Commodore attached but little credit 
tothei-pportatthe time, but subsequent events have 
proved that these statements in the papers were not 
unfounded. Is further proof wanted to show that 
It was not the march of General Taylor from Cor- 
pus Christi that brought on this war? If so, we find 
these proofs in the reports of General Taylor, in- 
forming us of the affair at the Little Colorado— of 
the rancheros which beset his march, and of his 
having found, on his arrival on the Rio Grande, 
1,500 or 2,000 men at Matamoros, and of expected 
leiiiforcements under General Ampudia, which 
could not have been organized and placed in posi- 
tion within the time which intervened between 
the breaking up of his camp at Corpus Christi 
and the arrival of General Taylor on the 22d of 
March at the Rio Grande? Proofs might be mul- 
tiplied to show the impossibility of the march of 
General Taylor to the Rio Grande having been 
the cause of this war. Yet, sir, for some time after 
the arrival of General Taylor on the Rio Grande, 
no attack was made upon him, and it had been 
deferred so long that that General, and General 
Worth, were both of opinion that no attack would 
be madeupon our army; and under this impression, 
General Worth, on the 13th of April, resigned his 
commission, and on the 16th of April, left Point 
Isabel for the United States, and reached Wash- 
ington on the day only before the news of Thorn- 
ton's affliir — which affair, as before observed, was 
the cause of the war. After all this proof it is still 
contended that the President is the cau.se of this 
war, because he did not supply General Taylor 
with more troops. Our unsettled difficulty, which 
was then at its height, with England, required a 
portion at least of our small arm y"in other quarters. 
The public exigencies at that time required a por- 
tion of our troops on the Atlantic, and on the Cana- 
dian and Indian frontiers. General Taylor was 
supplied with all the regulars that could lie spared 
htm. But the President gave him full authority, 
if he needed more troops to repel the threatened 
invasion, to call for such force as he wanted, upon 
the Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, 
Tennessee, Kentucky, and Texas; and the.'^e Gov- 
ernors were notified to honor General Taylor's 
call for such numbers of troops as he required. If 
General Taylor, in whom the President placed full 
confidence, did not draw for these troops, the fault 
was in him and not in the President. Volunteers 
were sent to him by General Gaines without his 
order, and it was a special ground of com|)laint on 
the part of General Taylor that those troops had 
been sent him; and General Taylor a:,-ain and 
again implored the department not to send him 
troops until he required them. And this confi- 
dence of the President in General Taylor is very 
ijravely brought forward as a charge against the 
President. This is really too bad. Will the time 
never arrive when an adversary can do an adver- 
sary justice? 

The remaining cause for this war, w hich I will 
hriefly consider, was the presentation to Texas, for 
her acceptance, of the first instead of the second of 
the resolutions of annexation. The first resolution, 



as well as the second, and in this respect they are 
identical, authorizes Congress to adjust with Mex- 
ico the boundary line. In what do these resolu- 
tions dilTer? In the first, Texas was authorized to 
come into the Union without another contest upon 
a treaty, which required — what never could be had 
— two-tliirds of the Senate to ratify it. In the sec- 
ond resolution, she had to come in through this 
gate, through which she never could have passed, 
or else she had to come in on terms which Texas 
might or might not have been willing to accede to, 
and in no event, without another Texas contest 
upon the terms of the contract, as well as upon the 
measure itself; which, in the mind of the Presi- 
dent, it was very desirable to avoid. Has the Sen- 
ator [Mr. Johnson, of Maryland] read the Jour- 
nal of our proceedings on these resolutions. Has 
he discovered that, while as a comprom.ise, every 
Democrat voted for the second of these resolutions, 
every Whig, but the immortal three — Merriclc, 
Henderson, and Johnson, of Louisiana — voted 
against this second resolution? If he has not read 
our proceedings which happened before his time, 
I advise him to do so. He has committed one 
murder upon his party already, by his manly and 
able vindication of the war; would it not be safe 
for him, if he desires to preserve his standing in 
his political church, not to commit anotlier.' His 
party, I can tell him, will not stand such a cata- 
logue of heresies as those of defending the war, 
and of bringing Taylor's military judgment into 
question, or, what is more important in their esti- 
mation, the propriety of their votes upon any 
Texas issue. 

Sir, before passing from the inquiries into the 
causes of this war, wliich I shall do very shortly, 
I have yet a duty to perform, and that is, to say a 
few words upon the examples which have been so 
triumphantly paraded, and which have been so fre- 
quently referred to, of Mr. Jefierson and Mr. Mad- 
ison, as exhibiting so striking a contrast to the acts 
of the President in reference to Taylor's march to the 
Rio Grande. The examples of 1803 and ]806, in 
the time of Mr. Jefferson, and in 1813, in the time 
of Mr. Madison, do present a contrast to the act 
of Mr. Polk in relation to the Texan boundary, 
and for the best of all reasons, that the cases refer- 
red to are entirely dissimilar. The act of 1803, 
of which Fi.oss's resolution was the foundation, 
and the right to navigate the Mississippi river the 
leading motive, and the law of nations the justifica- 
tion of it, was an aggressive act, and not defensive, 
and an act to authorize an invasion, and not an act 
to prevent an invasion. Authorities, it is true, 
have been read to show that this act was passed to 
prevent the invasion of this country by France in 
1803. That contemplated invasion I have con- 
tradicted for three reasons: the first is, that it was 
to jirotect Louisiana against capture and conquest 
by Great Britain; the second, that the authorities 
on which it is relied to prove the invasion of the 
United States bear date in 1802, and the resolution 
of Mr. Ross, on which the act v/as founded, was 
in 1803, and in those resolutions nothing is said 
about invasion; my third reason is, that if invasion 
had been apprehended, Mr. Jefferson, to whom all 
this correspondence, so greatly relied upon by Sen- 
ators, was directed, would have noticed that threat- 
ened invasion of this country by France in his 
annual message of a subsequent date, which he did 
not. For these reasons I contend that the act was 



aggressive — was for an invasion of Louisiana — 
and, therefore, very justly and very properly the 
action of Congress, as accomplices in the medi- 
tated invasion, was necessary; and Congress, in 
March of 1803, did consent to become the accom- 
plices of the President in that act of aggression. 
I have stated the claim, the right of navigation of 
the Mississippi, which we could not get, either by 
negotiation or purchase; a claim which it was ne- 
cessary to assert by force, so long as we had the 
right to a depot in New Orleans, by virtue of the 
treaty of 1796. That right expired by its own 
limitation, and we were unable to get that right to 
a depot extended, or our right to navigate the Mis- 
sissippi river to the ocean acknowledged, and were 
prepared, in the event of a failure to purchase of 
France a depot for our western produce, or the 
sanction of that Government to our claim to navi- 
gation, to assert it. We purchased Louisiana, 
and therefore no action was ever had under the act 
of 1803; and out of that purchase of Louisiana 
grew the difficulties which gave birth to the acts of 
1806 and 1813. I would ask if it is pretended that 
in 1806 or in 1813 there were any apprehensions 
of an invasion of this country by Spain ? I have 
heard and shall hear of no such allegation. This 
act, therefore, like that of 1803, was an act of ag- 
gression, and not designed to prevent an invasion 
of the territory of the United States, but to autho- 
rize the United States to invade the possessions 
claimed and occupied by the subjects of the Spanish 
monarch. On such a subject it was necessary and 
proper that Congress should be consulted, and 
Congress was consulted, and assented to the medi- 
tated invasion. Under the act of 1806 nothing was 
ever done. Under that of 1813 we took possession 
of the Mobile country, and subsequently incorpo- 
rated it into Alabama, where it is to-day. These 
are the cases, all aggressive, all contemplating an 
invasion of a country occupied and claimed by 
other powers with whom we were at peace. If 
gentlemen cannot see the difference between an 
aggressive, invasive act and one of self-defence and 
preventative of invasion, I shall have to conclude 
that they are duller in intellect than 1 had sup- 
posed. 

I will now, very briefly, consider the second 
count of this indictment against the Administra- 
tion; and that is, as to the manner in which this 
war has been conducted. When this war was de- 
clared, with but two dissenting voices in the Senate, 
and with but fourteen in the House, the President 
sent in his estimates for the necessary men, and 
money, and other means, to carry it on success- 
fully. These estimates of men and money and 
means, were voted with great unanimity by the two 
Houses of Congress. The President then devised 
his plans for carrying on this war; and these plans 
have been faithfully and brilliantly executed. And 
what have been the results? In less than two 
years, without any previous preparations for such 
results, the President has overthrown and subdued 
nearly the whole of Mexico — a country nearly as 
large as our own, and containing a population of 
about seven millions of inhabitants. If such glo- 
rious results as these, which have marked and 
distinguished the prosecution of this war, are not 
conclusive as to the skill and energy with which it 
has been conducted by the Administration, I shall 
be justified in saying that our opponents are very 
unreasonable, and very hard to please. Under 



10 






what circumstances have those results been achiev- 
ed ? They have been achieved in spite of the op- 
position party in this country, who, from the be- 
ginning to tiiis day, have endeavored to embarrass 
the Executive, by rendering this war odious and 
unpopular. At the very time that this war was 
declared — though voting for it, and every measure 
connected with it — we find it denounced by tlie 
Opposition, as unnecessary and unconsiitulional. 
They indicated (as the debates at that time will 
show) their purpose, at some future period, more 
suitable, in their judgment, for such a proceeding, 
than at that time, to bring the President to an ac- 
count for his sins, in bringing tliis unnecessary 
and unconstitutional war upon the country. 

The President has achieved these results m spite 
of these imputations, and in spite of these appeals 
to party, to fanaticism, and bigotry, and sectional 
jealousies. He has achieved them in spite of the 
terrors held up to our countrymen in the form of 
the fatal diseases of the Mexican climate — her 
deserts, and her mountains, and her invincible 
Spanish blood. The predictions of their prophets, 
(and what nation in time of war has ever been 
without them?) of ruin to our treasury, and bank- 
ruptcy to the whole country, and of having, after 
the first or second campaign, a foreign war upon 
our hands without an army in the field or money 
in the treasury; these predictions have not been 
obstacles of sufficient magnitude to interrupt ma- 
terially, or to pievent, our glorious successes. 
Such opposition, formidable only to weaker minds, 
has not deterred our Executive from the vigor- 
ous prosecution of this war. Flis triumphs have 
astounded the Opposition, and surpassed the ex- 
pectations of his. own friends. Ever regretting 
the existence of this war, and desirous at all times 
to close it on honorable terms, he asked for an 
appropriation of three millions of dollars, at the 
last session, to enable him to terminate it; and on 
that occasion, the Opposition, though clamoring for 
peace, refused, in a body, to vote for it. The cry 
then was, " Will you buy your peace of Mexico .'" 
In short, the Opposition denounced the war — they 
threw obstacles in the way of its prosecution, by 
endeavoring to render it o'dious; and when money, 
and not bullets, is asked, as a peace measure, that, 
in its turn, is denounced. What shall we do? 
What can be done that can and will satisfy our 
friends over the way ? 

Mr. President, the last and chief point which I 
propose to notice is, the ulterior objects of this 
war. The ulterior objects of this war are, to ob- 
tain a speedy and permanent peace, upon just and 
honorable terms. These terms are, the full pay- 
ment of the claims of our citizens against Mexico, 
and a reasonable indemnity for the expenses and 
sacrifices which this war has cost us. This de- 
mand is expected in the shape of territory. At 
the last session of Congress, I was authorized to 
state, and did state, what territory was regarded 
as of sufficient value to satisfy our demands, and 
that that territory was New Mexico and Upper 
California. This statement, it will be recollected, 
was made before the battle of Buena Vista, and 
before the fall of Vera Cruz and her celebrated 
castle. These terms, our agent, Mr. Trist, was 
authorized to propose, before our army marched 
from Vera Cruz. After that agent had received his 
instructions, our army fought its way to the very 
gates of the city of Mexico, and there, on the eve of 



the entrance of our victorious army into that city, 
an armistice was entered into, for the purpose of 
saving the further effusion of blood, by a treaty. 
Notwithstanding the favorable change m the pos- 
ture of our affairs in that country, after the in- 
structions had been given to Mr. Trist; notwith- 
standing the many successful but bloody battles 
our army had fought, after Mr. Trist had received 
his instructions; the many cities, and castles, and 
fortifications, the arms and munitions of war, be- 
longing to the enemy, which our army had taken, 
subsequent to those instructions; the rout, or cap- 
ture, or slaughter of her armies, and her capital 
within our reach, — notwithstanding all these favor- 
able changes, which occurred after Mr. Trist had 
received his instructions on our affairs in that coun- 
try — changes that would have well justified the 
United States in exacting terms more onerous upon 
Mexico — we find Mr. Trist, our agent, offering 
to receive of Mexico Upper California and New 
Mexico, of both of which we were then in pos- 
session, and, as conquerors, had the unquestion- 
able right to hold or dispose of. These provinces 
were not only satisfactory, but were regarded as 
more than satisfactory: for our agent proposed to 
give for them, in addition to our demand, import- 
ant moneyed considerations, besides restoring to 
her all the residue of our conquests in that coun- 
try. These terms, too liberal in the estimation of 
many, were rejected by Mexico. The armistice 
was then terminated, the capital taken, and her 
army and government driven from it. These oc- 
currences having been communicated to our Gov- 
ernment, Mr. Trist, our agent, was recalled by a 
letter from the Department of State, on the 6th of 
October, 1847. And that recall was reiterated on- 
the 25th of October, and the receipt of the first, 
letter of recall is acknowledged by Mr. Trist in ai 
letter of the date of the 27th of November, 1847.- 
Since the recall of Mr. Trist, there has been no; 
one in Mexico authorized by the Government of 
the United States to make a treaty with Mexico.' 
But it is well known in Mexico, that the President' 
is willing, and is really anxious, to make a treaty 
with her. If the terms offered by Mr. Trist had,, 
been accepted by Mexico, that treaty would have* 
had the sanction of the President. These terms^ 
now, with probably a slight modification as t(X 
boundary, and the withdrawal, in whole or in part,/ 
of the moneyed consideration^, would be approved, 
by the President. The President never did desire,, 
and does not now desire, the whole of Mexico, or* 
the extinction of her nationality, or the incorpora-t 
tion of it, as States or provinces, info this Union. 
No such policy ever found favor with him. His 
messages, and all his acts, connected with Mexi- 
can affiiirs, furnish abundant proof that he never 
contemplated or desired any such results. Th 
President, in my judgment, more than any other 
man in America, desired to avoid this war; and 
that officer, more, probably, than any other man 
in America, has ever been most desirous of termi- 
nating it, speedily and honorably. With this 
conviction upon my mind, I was not prepared to 
hear the Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Bell] as- 
sert that the President did not desire a peace with 
Mexico, and that the President desired to conquer 
and hold the whole of Mexico. 

Sir, when that Senator [Mr. Bell] stated that 
the President did not desire a peace with Mexico, 
I really supposed he was indulging in a little 



11 



humorous irony — in a little pleasantry of wit, 
which he intended as a gentle reproof of the Presi- 
dent for tJie eagerness he had ever manifested to 
make a treaty with Mexico, (an eagerness which 
many thought rather too beseeching, and a little 
unbecoming,) and with this impression on my 
mind, contrasted with his grave demeanor, I was 
about to conclude that he was one of the most 
magnificent jokers of the age. But this illusion 
did not long continue. I soon found my friend 
preparing very eloquently and very seriously to 
prove, and that, too, by the President's message, 
that the President did not desire a peace with 
Mexico; and with such force and earnestness did 
he press this matter, that I really began to doubt 
die correctness of my own opinions upon the sub- 
ject. I began to think I had not read the Presi- 
dent's message underslandingly, and that I had 
not correctly comprehended the purport of the 
many conversations I had had with him and the 
members of his Cabinet upon this subject. These 
doubts, however, like my allusion at first, were 
but momentary. The President, the Senator says, 
is not anxious to make a peace with Mexico. 

Mr. BELL explained that he had stated that 
the President was not anxious to make a treaty, 
unless he could so make it as to obtain security 
for the future. 

Mr. CASS asked on what authority the Sen- 
ator from Tennessee stated that it was a security 
against the interference of foreign nations. 

Mr. BELL replied, that it was a deduction from 
the policy which had been pursued, and the argu- 
ments by which it was defended here. He pro- 
tested against being represented, as saying the 
President was not anxious to make a peace — he 
ought to be — but that he would not make a peace 
which did not offer security for the future. 

Mr. SEVIER. Sir, the President wants a peace 
with Mexico — a speedy and permanent peace. He 
would not make a treaty with a man of straw — 
irresponsible, and not at the head of that Gov- 
ernment; but would sign a treaty to-morrow, or 
to-day, with Herrei-a and the Congress at Quere- 
taro, if that treaty gave the satisfactory conces- 
sions. But, " indemnity for the past and security 
for the future!" What he means by security for 
the future, is a treaty with a government suffi- 
ciently stable and permanent to make a treaty, 
and to close It, and to sign it on parchment — a 
treaty that will be recognized as such in the eyes of 
the world. If the President can make a treaty with 
a government as stable as that of Herrera, or Pa- 
redes, or Santa Anna, or the present government, 
whether they be governments de jure or de facto, he 
will make it, and hold that country responsible for 
its fulfilment. But " indemnity for the past and 
security for the future," is an expression in the 
message of the President that seems to be unpal- 
atable to the Senator from Tennessee. If we all 
did not know that the President was incapable of 
it, we might suppose he had plagiarized the ex- 
pression from Mr. Clay. ' When the opponents of 
the last war were pressing that gentleman for a 
declaration of the objects of Mr. Madison's war, 
that gentleman replied, the objects were "indem- 
nity for the past and security for the future." The 
avowal was unsatisfactory at that day, as it appears 
to be in this. 

The President endeavored, in December, 1846, 
to make a treaty with Herrera, in the midst of a 



revolution in that country, and only a few days 
before Herrera was overthrown. He endeavored 
to make a treaty with Paredes, a military usiu-per, 
claiming only to exercise the functions of Presi- 
dent ad interim; and when his downfall was threat- 
ened, and which, in a few months afterwards was 
consummated, he endeavored, through his agent, 
Mr. Trist, to make a treaty with Santa Anna, the 
Dictator of that country, and but a few weeks only 
preceding his downfall. He has since publicly 
avowed in his message his willingness and hearty 
desire to make a treaty with Mexico at any future 
time. Sir, the President wants a peace with that 
country — his objects are peace, and all of his meas- 
ures are recommended to get peace. Tliere have 
been many rumors in this city, and through the 
country, that this desired object of us all — that is, 
peace with Mexico — has been obtained by General 
Scott and Mr. Trist. It seems to me that the Sen- 
ator seems to speak knowingly upon tiie sulject, 
and that he wants those on this side of the Cham- 
ber to commit themselves, for or against it, before 
they see or know anything about it. 

Mr. BELL disclaimed any such object. 

Mr. SEVIER said he was glad to hear the dis- 
claimer. But these rumors had been so prevalent, 
and as there seemed to have been some confidence 
attached to these rumors of peace, he intended to 
ask the Senator whether he had received informa- 
tion that Scott or Trist, without the sanction of the 
Government, which neither of them had, had made 
a treaty, or were about to make a treaty, or not. I 
have been about in the city a good deal, among 
gentlemen of both parties, and have heard rumors 
of a treaty in every direction, and questions have 
been asked of me, if I did not know that the news 
of the treaty had arrived by telegraph from Peters- 
burg, or New York; and again, that the treaty 
was in the city, and that the messenger that brought 
it was here; and tlierefore it was, that, when I 
heard the Senator so repeatedly asking us if we 
would accept a treaty, ceding us California and 
New Mexico, I supposed he might have what the 
Government had not — a copy of the treaty in his 
pocket. • 

Mr. BELL. Do you know anything about such 
a treaty ? 

Mr. SEVIER. No, sir. I know nothing about 
a treaty; but it did appear, sir, as if the Senator 
had been informed of a treaty, and that he was 
trying to force us to commit ourselves — to go it 
blind — whether we were for it or against it. 

Mr. BELL disavowed any such intention. 
What he wanted to know was, whether the Ad- 
ministration regarded the existing Goveriiment.of 
Mexico as competent to give security for the future.' 

Mr. SEVIER. That question, sir, I have an- 
swered already: that the Government would, if it 
could, make a treaty with the present Government 
in Mexico. And as we have had prophets on the 
other side, I will now beg to turn prophet myself. 
I prophesy, when a treaty is made, if it ever be 
made, that that treaty will be decidedly opposed 
by the gentlemen on the other side. They will 
oppose it as being too liberal or too rigid to Mex- 
ico; it will have in it too little or too much for their 
approbation. I hope I may be mistaken in this 
prophecy. Put the prophecy down in your memo- 
randum books, and when the day shall come wiien 
we shall have such a treaty to dispose of, it will be 
seen whether 1 have prophesied truly or not. 



12 



Sir, the President will be satisfictl with a treaty 
providing for tiie payment of our claims, and for 
an indemnity for the expenses and sacrifices which 
the war has cost us. Upper Califurnia and New 
Mexico were re2;arded as sufficient for ail of our 
demands against Mexico. Something more may 
or may not now be required. Tamjiico and tiie 
mountains of Sierra Madre, without other equiv- 
alents than our demands, with, probably, tiie 
security of some commercial privile^-es, may be 
requiied now. It is not to be expected that the 
precise terms of a contemplated treaty, before it is 
made, can, with propriety, be made [)ublic. 

Sir, the President never dreamed, at any time, 
that any one ever thought that his object, hereto- 
fore or now, was the extinction of the nationality 
of Mexico. I never heard, sir, from ixny respect- 
able source, until the Senator from South Carolina 
[Mr. CALHOUNf] introduced his resolutions upon 
that suliject, that the President ever had or could 
have any such scheme in view. The Senator from 
Tennessee assumes, in the f;\ce of the Pi'esident's 
message, that such are the designs of the President, 
and upon that assumption he bases his opposition 
to the ten-regiment bill. Sir, my honorable friend 
described to us, with great force and much appa- 
rent feeling, the cruelly and tyranny of the lash of 
party, and in the same connection he told us, that 
he came here this winter prepared to vote for any 
reasonalile amountof men and money, to carry on 
this war successfully. When I put these state- 
ments together— the party lash, of which he so 
justly and bitterly complained, and the change 
which he confessed had been made in his original, 
generous intentions towards the Administration, 
upon the sul)ject of this war, and that of opposi- 
tion to the bill before us — I could but think that 
the parly lash had been but too successfully applied 
to him. He found, on his arrival here, that many 
of his party were not up to his original mark; that 
some of them were so far below it as to be ad- 
vocates of the policy to bring back our army the 
quickest, and shortest, and cheapest way, without 
peace, or indemnity, or the payment of the claims 
of our citizens. I could but think that the rigor 
of party discipline, ae'ainst his better will and 
judgment, had forced him to abandon his oi-iginal 
position, and to go over to the platform prepared 
for him by the Senators from Ohio [iVlr. Corwin] 
and New Hampshire, [Mr. Hale.] Forced into 
this new position, I thought that he considered it 
necessary to assign some reason for this change, 
and that reason he found in the position he assumes, 
that it is the design of the President to seize and 
hold the whole of iVIexico. Sir, that sin, of which 
the Senator spoke, in the poetic language of Pope, 
that at fiist was repulsive, then tolerated, and then 
embraced, was a description, I thought, fully appli- 
cable to his transitions, in reference to his change 
of policy upon the subject of this war, and the 
substitution of an opposite policy. 

Sir, the Senator from Tennessee desires to drive 
us, it would appear, to the issue of calling the 
army back, the cheapest and shortest way, or to 
take the whole of Mexico. He has made this 
issue; we have not made it. We take the issue 
of a prosecution of this war luitil we force a peace, 
predicated upon the terms of paying the claims of 
our citizens and of indemnifying the country to 
some extent for the expenses of this war; or the 
withdrawal of our army, without peace, or indem- 



nity, or the payment of those claims. This is the 
true issue. But, sir, the Senator from Tennessee 
is an able and an adroit man. 

Mr. BELL. I do not take that as a compli- 
ment. 

Mr. SEVIER. Well, then, sir, I will take it 
back. But 1 will say, that from his great al)ilities, 
and talents, and influence in Tennessee, and from 
the is.^nes he made up for the people of that State 
to decide, that he produced a revolution in public 
sentiment in that State, and took it from the Dem- 
ocratic party. He came here with a high reputa- 
tion for his powers of mind, which led \is to expect 
what we know now by experience. Now, sir, he 
would make an issue for us of the whole of iVIex- 
ico, or the line of the Rio Grande or the Nueces. 
This is his own issue, not ours. Yet this is the 
issue he argues. He assumes that it is the policy 
of the Administration to take the whole of Mexico; 
and, so regarding it, he gives us his views at great 
'length, most eloquently and powerfully against such 
a measure. To prove that that is the ol ject of the 
Administration, he refers to the abolition of the 
transit duties in Mexico, in which he sees an elTort 
on the part of the United States to conciliate the 
people of Mexico. I suppose the Senator refers 
to the order from the Treasury Department to 
General Scott. That order was given for no such 
purpose. It was found impossible to collect the.se 
transit duties with our machinery in a country- 
like Mexico. They were therefore abolished; an(M | 
in lieu of those duties, the different departments o£^ ! 
Mexico were required by General Scott to furnish 
him a gross amount, at stated periods, which has 
been done. The revenues thus collected exceed,'^ 
according to the statement of General Scott, four-8 j 
fold the amount that was received under the sys-3 i 
tern that he abolished. Does the Senator call this 
electioneering, or an effort on the part of the Uni- 
ted States to conciliate the people of Mexico?*] 
Thinking that this evidence proves the truth of hiffl|| 
assumption, that the Administration desiies the* ' 
subjugation of all Mexico, he then proceeds to 
enumerate, with great force and skill, the objec- - 
tidns which he sees in such a measure. Now, sir, 
if we shall be drawn to such an issue by the em- 
barrassments flung in the way of our Government 
at home, and by the encouragement whii-li such 
oppfisition gives to the fieople of iSIexi'^o; which 
issue is, to retreat ingloriously from that country, 
leaving an exasperated and perpetual, and piob- 
ably a pursuing enemy behind us, without peac^ 
or indemnity, or the payment of the claims of ou 
citizens; or to take the whole of Mexico, — wha level 
may be the consequences, I, for one, am ready t 
say, march on. In such a chain of evils, I 
ready to say, that, sir, although against the con- 
quest of Mexico, and against any more than a rea- 
sonable cession of territory, if we are to talce the 
issue proposed by the Senator from Tennessee, I 
will go for the whole of Mexico, with all the ob- 
jections attending it, and there are many which are 
great, but, in my judgmelil, not entirely insur- 
mountable. What are they.' The Senator enu- 
merates them. The popul.ition of that country is 
one, and the extent of the country is the other. 

The population of that country is a!>out seven 
millions; of this number three-fourihs are Iniiians, 
illiterate, docile, passive, inoff nsive, never desir- 
ing and never exercising any of the privileges of 
citizens — never voting, or taking any part in dec- 



13 



tions in that country, or in its revolutions. These 
Indians are of different tribes, and each of them 
speaks, as tiie Senator informs us, a different lan- 
guage from the others. What shall we do with 
these Indians? Will we allow them to vote, or to 
be represented? I would do neither; I would treat 
them as we do our own Indians — give them agents 
and laws, and kindness, and education. They are 
a degraded race in Mexico — they could be made 
less so under our administration. The Senator 
from Tennessee is aware of this. Some eighteen 
or twenty years ago, that Senator introduced and 
passed a bill to remove all the Indian tribes from 
out of the States in whicli they resided, and in 
which they never voted, nor were they ever repre- 
sented, to a country set apart for them west of 
Missouri and Arkansas. There are those tribes 
now, twenty odd of them, speaking as many lan- 
guages, all improving and happy — so mucli so, 
that on two occasions a bill passed the Senate, with 
but few dissenting voices, to organize those tribes 
into a territory, preparatory to admitting them into 
this Confederacy. We can get along with those 
Indians with as little trouble as we do with our 
own. They are less warlike, less enlightened or 
energetic. What shall we do with the other fourth 
of the population of Mexico, which consists of 
pure blood, and half-breeds of Indian and Euro- 
pean blood ? To this class I w«uld apply the prin- 
ciples of our naturalization laws, and the oath of 
allegiance. I would treat them with kindness and 
respect, and protect them in the enjoyment of their 
property and religion, and ultimately make them, 
as we do all naturalized foreigners, upon an equal- 
ity with native-born citizens. But the Senator 
says this cannot be done. They have in their veins 
the blood of the Visigoths and Celtibereans, a race 
of pedple that was never heard to groan. In this 
poetic description I of course have no confidence. 
If they suffer, they will sigh, whatever party may 
say to the contrary. He says they will never be- 
come reconciled to us, and will assassinate upon 
every opportunity. I do not believe in irreconcil- 
, iation for general, and not for private griefs, and 
particularly for benefits confeired. If, however, 
they will slab and assassinate, there is a remedy 
in this country for such abuses, and that remedy 
grows in Kentucky and Missouri, which is vul- 
garly called " hemp. " But these people are Cath- 
olics — and so they are. Are Catholics opposed to 
our institutions, in this or that country? In this 
country we have not found it so. We have had 
Catholics in our service, at the head of our armies, 
in our Cabinet, and on the Supreme Court bench. 
From Mexico, the Catholics — for they are all Cath- 
olics — have expelled monarchy, and have copied 
our Constitution for their form of government. I 
would extend to Mexico, a% we have in this coun- 
try, unreserved toleration in religious faith. That 
would be my remedy. 

But the country is a large one, and if added to 
this, would destroy both. That is only an opin- 
ion. Every extension of territory thus far has 
strengthened rather than weakened it. The W higs 
have ever opposed the extension of territory — it 
has been their destiny — and always upon the 
ground that it would endanger our liberties. The 
only instances of disturbances in the States have 
been confined to the old ones, and in those near 
the centre. We have had a convention of malcon- 
tents at Hartford, Connecticut, a whiskey insur- 



rection in Pennsylvania, under the auspices, I 
believe, of Albert Gallatin, and some dissatisfac- 
tion in Sou'h Carolina, growing out of our reve- 
nue laws. These, I believe, were all. Let us 
have something else than speculation upon this 
subject. But if this country is to be added, he 
tells us we are to have a standing army to keep 
the people quiet, and to protect it. A small peace 
establishment and our navy would be sufficient for 
both these purposes. Will the people of Yucatan, 
or Honduras, or New Grenada ever invade it? It 
is hardly probable. But the debts which Mexico 
owes abroad and to the church, would you pay 
those debts? inquires the Senator. I answer, yes; 
and with the revenues of Mexico — which, under 
the operation of our finance laws, would easily and 
speedily be done. But the annexation of Mexico 
would greatly increase the patronage of the Execu- 
tive, by the appointment of judges, marshals, dis- 
trict attorneys, governors, &c.; and such patron- 
age would cost us a great deal, and make the 
President dangerous from his increased power. 
Sir, the cost would be paid from the revenues of 
the country; and as for patronage, it is the oldest, 
the most popular, and has really the least in it, of 
all the fears wliich ever be.set our people. Instead 
of strengthening it weakens the President. He 
has generally many applicants for office — he can 
give it to but one. He that receives it is no more 
a friend to the President than he was before; and 
those who wanted the office and do not get it, are 
often made enemies of the President on account of 
the disappointment. The man he appoints, though 
probably influential before, loses his influence by 
the very fact that his motives are always suspect- 
ed. No man who has ever had patronage desires it. 
I have felt this myself. I represent a people who 
generally care but little about office; yet it has 
happened that for a vacant office there were more- 
than one application; and the most painful of all 
my duties here has ever been to choose between 
my friends. The Senator from Tennessee was 
once in the War Department, as the Senator from 
North Carolina [Mr. Badger] was once in the 
Navy Department. They have had some expe- 
rience upon this subject of patronage. Do they 
not well remember how much they were annoyed 
by it? How difficult it was for them to see gen- 
tlemen on business, on account of the hordes of 
office-seekers that surrounded them? Would not 
those gentlemen have been highly gratified if they 
could have been relieved of all this trouble? Yes, 
sir, this cry of patronage, designed to create a jeal- 
ousy of Executive power, was in full blast when 
I came here many years ago; and beitig then a 
very young man, I was green enough to believe 
there was something in it. This cry has been in 
full blast ever since, and will be in full blast when 
I am dead and gone. If you want to strengthen 
your Executive, deprive him of patronage alto- 
gether; if you would serve the country, afford as 
few occasions for its exercise as possible. 

These, sir, are some of the prominent objections 
urged by the Senator against the incorporation of 
all Mexico into this Union. And to render this 
measure still more odious, he imputes to the Presi- 
dent, and to the army, and to those who sustain 
both, the base and ignoble purposes of carrying 
on the war for " gold and glory." Sir, I have 
endeavored to show that this war was inevitable 
on our part, and that it is prosecuted from the 



W46 



^ •" ^" '<^ *«'«o' o,^- 



-U *.--T. .V 








%'-^'\^ %^-'/ **,''!^\/ "o.-^ 







T* A 



./ .'i-:^' "-^^ 




:. ^^^ '. 
















0^ Z"^^'; '^OV^' :^M^r.\ '^-t..^' oV^Pl'- '^'x^.-i^" 



V*?^.^^/., V'*3^\/ "^^^^W^^J" \'^.. 























V^' 












■^ '♦o ho'' a"^ 







(?•' 



» • • » •'^■s. 



Ik* 



VVERT 

BOOKBINDING 

Crantnlle Pa 

Jan fee l?*" 









. -> A*^ ■■= 









